If a sponsor allows cookie-stuffing, is there a way to link to remove the old cookie?

[AmeliaG]

If a sponsor allows cookie-stuffing, is there a way to link to strip out the old cookie, in favor of the affiliate who actually sent the sale?

I just found out a new sponsor I was trying out gives the sale to whoever sent the first click and not whoever sent the join. I thought that style of coding affiliate revshare went out about a decade ago, but I guess some still do it. I'd like to promote this sponsor, but not if I'm not going to get credit for joins.

[MMarko]

Just skip it. There are plenty of good programs out there which don't do that.

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by MMarko

Just skip it. There are plenty of good programs out there which don't do that.

[iSpyCams]

If it's with nats the "track" in the link overwrites any existing cookie.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by pompousjohn

If it's with nats the "track" in the link overwrites any existing cookie.

Alas, seems to be a custom system from the sponsor.

[Barry-xlovecam]

No, only the server (of the domain) that sets the cookie can; fetch the cookie, read, remove or reset it with another value.

Notwithstanding some browser vulnerability.

[Jdoughs]

Which programs openly accept cookie stuffs?

I'd stay away from any of them that do.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Jdoughs

Which programs openly accept cookie stuffs?

I'd stay away from any of them that do.

I'm not trying to start a war with this sponsor. If their link codes were right, I think they have content I could sell. But I'm kinda stunned to have someone explain the wrong join page coming up when I click over as the result of the sponsor being set up for cookie stuffing. Like they thought that was a good thing.

I was hoping for a workaround to replace earlier cookies with the right one. Or maybe the sponsor will see the error of doing it that way.

[u-Bob]

Giving the sale to whoever sent the first click and allowing cookie stuffing are 2 totally different things. Very misleading title...

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Giving the sale to whoever sent the first click and allowing cookie stuffing are 2 totally different things. Very misleading title...

What is the difference?

[d-null]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

What is the difference?

seriously?

cookie stuffing is when a surfer visits a page and has cookies set for a number of programs without ever actually having to click on a specific link for each sponsor

it is totally shady and is a way some crooked affiliates fuck over all the other affiliates out there that are doing it the honest way

[cambaby]

Originally Posted by d-null

seriously? cookie stuffing is when a surfer visits a page and has cookies set for a number of programs without ever actually having to click on a specific link for each sponsor it is totally shady and is a way some crooked affiliates fuck over all the other affiliates out there that are doing it the honest way

Most of the major tubes do it too.

[MrMaxwell]

That still works?!

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by d-null

seriously?

cookie stuffing is when a surfer visits a page and has cookies set for a number of programs without ever actually having to click on a specific link for each sponsor

it is totally shady and is a way some crooked affiliates fuck over all the other affiliates out there that are doing it the honest way

And the only way cookie stuffing works is if the sponsor gives sales to the first cookie and not the cookie which actually made the sale, correct?

Is there any reason, other than employing cookie stuffing, to give the first affiliate the sale and not the affiliate who actually sent the join?

[rowan]

Have you asked the sponsor whether they'd consider changing their model? And are you sure they actually allow cookie stuffing?

[Jdoughs]

Having the first cookie credited to the sale has nothing to do with cookie stuffing.

Cookie stuffing is a way for affiliates to 'cookie' 100 sites at one surfer with the load of a page, so that if they sign up somewhere AFTER visiting the page, and don't get cookied again, they are their sale.

Whether that cookie is permanent or not has nothing to do with the actual stuffers success.

In fact, I would suppose most 'stuffers' wouldn't touch that as the chances of them being the first cookie are slim.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by rowan

Have you asked the sponsor whether they'd consider changing their model? And are you sure they actually allow cookie stuffing?

Yes and yes. I'm hoping they reconsider the way they are currently doing it. Failing that, I was hoping there was a way to just make the most current cookie the most current cookie via the link structure. Sounds like the answer to that is not really any good way.

[cambaby]

Most sponsors dont CARE about cookie stuffing really, a sale is a fucking sale, they have no allegiance to you specifically as an affiliate.

Check your cookies after visiting some of the big tubes, its pretty revealing how they make their money.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by cambaby

Most sponsors dont CARE about cookie stuffing really, a sale is a fucking sale, they have no allegiance to you specifically as an affiliate.

Check your cookies after visiting some of the big tubes, its pretty revealing how they make their money.

It seems like setting things up to give the first affiliate the sale, and not crediting the affiliate who ultimately makes the sale . . . well, it seems like the sort of thing likely to lead to fewer affiliates promoting that program.

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

A lot of sponsors will allow cookie stuffing if you come to them openly with a reasonable argument for why they should let you. I know (or at least knew) a couple guys with legitimate cookie stuffing operations in mainstream. Was a hot topic of discussion on a private member forum i was on a couple years back now. Some will let you, some won't. Depends if your argument is valid enough in their eyes I suppose.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat

A lot of sponsors will allow cookie stuffing if you come to them openly with a reasonable argument for why they should let you. I know (or at least knew) a couple guys with legitimate cookie stuffing operations in mainstream. Was a hot topic of discussion on a private member forum i was on a couple years back now. Some will let you, some won't. Depends if your argument is valid enough in their eyes I suppose.

Hmm, what possible benefits would a sponsor derive from cookie stuffing?

[d-null]

Originally Posted by woj

Hmm, what possible benefits would a sponsor derive from cookie stuffing?

sucking up to a huge traffic shady affilate or two, maybe?

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

Originally Posted by woj

Hmm, what possible benefits would a sponsor derive from cookie stuffing?

If you're paying for the traffic, driving a hard sale via your site and the user just happens to not click the link, but decides a couple days later to check the site out and makes the sale. Don't you think you should be credited for that sale?

Obviously you can't hide the stuff from the sponsor like many of the shady stuffs that go on, or stuff offsite, but stuffing on your own pages in a legitimate and approved way so that the sponsor can see where the cookies are being dropped still.

They have nothing to gain from people stuffing cookies all over the wbe wherever they see fit with a blanked referrer, but if you present your case well and stick to your course legitimately what do they really have to lose either?

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

Originally Posted by d-null

sucking up to a huge traffic shady affilate or two, maybe?

This is another option too. Who said business was fair? They could just as easily be kissing ass to large holders of traffic, saying fuck the little guy in the process. As long as it works in their favor in the end, who is to question their judgment in the matter? Sure it may be shady, but there's all kinda shady in all levels of internet marketing, and a lot of the guys at the top right now came from uber shady beginnings....

[rowan]

You still haven't really explained what benefit the program derives from cookie stuffing. An iframe or img src is really just a clayton's click... neither the affiliate nor sponsor has the surfer at that point.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat

If you're paying for the traffic, driving a hard sale via your site and the user just happens to not click the link, but decides a couple days later to check the site out and makes the sale. Don't you think you should be credited for that sale?

Obviously you can't hide the stuff from the sponsor like many of the shady stuffs that go on, or stuff offsite, but stuffing on your own pages in a legitimate and approved way so that the sponsor can see where the cookies are being dropped still.

They have nothing to gain from people stuffing cookies all over the wbe wherever they see fit with a blanked referrer, but if you present your case well and stick to your course legitimately what do they really have to lose either?

I get how forcing a cookie when the user is actually reading about something on your site could be reasonable, but I don't get how giving that cookie priority makes sense, if someone later clicks from somewhere else.

[MetaMan]

I think this thread should be locked. It's not going to do anyone any good.